XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: Taemon@zonnet.nl
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message
> "Taemon" spoke these staves:
Hi Troels. I don't know why it took me two weeks to get back on this. I
guess it doesn't matter. If I'm too late for this to be of any interest
anymore, it'll show.
>> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
> On the attitude of AFT & RABT to the New Line Cinema film version of
> /The Lord of the Rings/ -- particularly the critical attitude towards
> them:
>> Well... Epstein was like that.
> Actually I think Epstein's argument was that no film would ever
> suffice or should even be allowed -- not even the 100% one that used
> every single word that Tolkien wrote either as dialogue or by
> visualizing, and added nothing but trivial extra visual details. Of
> all the people I have seen posting in AFT & RABT over the past
> decade, he seems the only one to hold such an opinion (and, truth be
> told, I think he was sometimes ridiculed for it).
Well, in itself it wasn't a ricidulous position, but if he would have it
defended, he should have sent somebody else. He wasn't very, uhm, eloquent
about it. Also, it wasn't the only extreme position he held. All in all, I
think Epstein wasn't the most... say... stable person around here.
> My current whitelist of legitimate posters to these group, started at
> the time of the sporge attack about five years ago, I think, is at
> 709 e-mail addresses. Even considering that many posters are
> registered with more than one address, and that many of these posters
> haven't expressed themselves about the films, there is still a
> considerable amount of opinions on the films from at least a couple
> of hundred posters.
>> And Paul Person is trying to fill his shoes, lately.
> Well, I might add one or two others to that, but it is still no more
> than one or two percent of the total amount of opinions about the
> films that are on record here.
On record, in total, maybe. Nowadays? How many people post here? Twenty? And
of those the majority is anti-PJ.
Almost all the "movie-newbies" are gone. What remains is the hardliners, and
those are generally "purists". I sure FEEL like a minority :-)
>> In that context, I don't think it's a strawman at all.
> I must insist that it /is/ a straw man.
> While there may be, as I acknowledged in my previous post, a very
> small minority that would agree that only the 100% adaptation would
> suffice (and I would count anything below, say, 5% of the total a
> very small minority), it is indeed a straw man argument to imply that
> this opinion is held by anyone -- or even just a majority -- of the
> people who are in some way critical of Jackson's achievement. It is
> also a fallacious appeal to spite to attempt to claim that anyone
> disagreeing with one self must be ludicrously extremist in their
> position.
I kinda agree with that, although I see some of that extremism here. I do
not agree it is a strawman. A poll would be nice :-) I have seen many posts
claiming that the Hobbit movie is going to be a disaster because PJ is going
to be behind it. That, to me, is an illustration of strong dislike for PJ
and his LOTR. Me, I'm looking forward to the Hobbit movie very much and I
can sense the torches and pitchforks rising up behind me for saying that.
> The parts that I find truly problematic constitute less than 5% of the
> total run time, and I honestly wish that I was better able to merely
> 'stand back' and ignore the relation to Tolkien's work.
I hear you. I have the same reaction the the Wizard Wrestling Duel and the
dwarf tossing, among a few other scenes. It's hard to let go and enjoy,
knowing that bitter pill is to be found in the feast. In the theatre, I had
to keep myself from explaining to people around me that that was "not real".
>> There is a sense in this group of the books being holy, and not
>> allowed to be moviefied.
> I hear you. I happen to disagree, but I am somewhat surprised that
> you should feel that way.
> It is true that we tend to dwell more on the problems we've had with
> the films, but overall I think people tend to be careful to also note
> that there were several of the changes that they either found very
> sensible or at least didn't mind at all. I think it is only natural
> that the comparison to Tolkien's work, and thereby the deviations
> from that, will be the main focus of a group that is, after all,
> devoted to the works of Tolkien. It is possible that this creates a
> sense of fault-finding that may be at the root of your impression.
Hmm. Maybe. The reactions to the upcoming Hobbit movie do nothing to put
that impression to rest, though.
> As you can hear, my impression of the 'overall' opinion (or median or
> average opinion, whatever it is ;-) is different from yours, but I'm
> concerned that we, as a group, should appear that way (after all,
> /if/ my impression is correct, then it means that the majority of us
> here appear to support a position we do not in actual fact agree
> with) -- what might be done to explain our position better? Is it
> possible to keep the focus on the deviations from Tolkien's story
> without creating an air of fault-finding? Is there something that
> /I/ can do?
Why, no, what makes you say so? It is not your, or anyone's, responsibility
to make sure I, or anyone else, get the correct impression about the group's
overall, or median, position as to the movies, irregardless whether you or I
are closer to the truth. Did I win the Comma Award with that one? Because I
sure tried.
This group is small, and hasn't seen many changes in its composition. Too
small, some say. I myself do not mind; it is what it is, and there's a
reason I came back. But it might be there is some groupthink at work.
Certain opinions strengthening each other. I do not know. I'm glad there's a
discussion about it.
T.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
